Catriona Stewart tells of how she had read of a man, Gary Brissett, awaiting his sentencing date next week for wanton vandalism, namely, criminal damage ("keying") to an Aston Martin motor vehicle causing £7,741 worth of damage ("Joys of pootling along in the car", The Herald, September 11).

However, rather than asking why this man felt it was appropriate to, willingly and without reason, damage another's property Ms Stewart uses her column to metaphorically slap Mr. Bissett on the back, congratulate him for damaging the other person's vehicle and imploring us to feel pity for him and his son as he faces the possibility of a custodial sentence for his actions.

Ms Stewart tells us readers that the owner of this vehicle deserved such treatment because he (or she perhaps) must be part of the bourgeois establishment to own such a vehicle and, because it's capable of great speed, no doubt he drives it everywhere at that speed and the owner of a Fiat 500 would never be rich and never drive fast. Such statements are ill informed, ill researched, incorrect and verging on incitement.

Regardless of morality or who's richer than whom, the £7,741 worth of damage will not be paid by the owner of the Aston Martin, but the owner's insurance company who will, in turn, pass this onto you and me in the form of increased premiums so this hurts us all.

The last time I looked, encouraging people to break the law was held in very low regard by our lawmakers but that is what, effectively, Ms Stewart has done. The owners deserve it because of their wealth. Does this mean it is also OK to throw a brick through the window of a house that is out of one's price bracket or pour paint over someone's Armani suit or Dior dress? Of course it does not.

Publishing such an article is not appropriate for a "quality" newspaper and Ms Stewart as a senior reporter and features writer should know far better. She has an ill-understood outlook on morality.

John Stevens.

Catriona Stewart thinks a man who vandalised a car deserves a medal, simply because the car was an expensive one.

The morality of this is doubtful,to say the least. Either vandalism is wrong or it isn't but Ms Stewart should remember that wealth is a relative concept. If she owns a car (and the article would suggest she does) that makes her by definition wealthier than someone who cannot afford a car.

If a non-car owner were to vandalise Ms Stewart's vehicle, this person would therefore also be entitled to a medal, by her argument.

I rather suspect, though, that she would not agree with this even though it is consistent with her own position.

A crime is a crime,whether the victim is wealthy or not.

Alan Jenkins,

0/1,111 Helensburgh Drive

Glasgow

Catriona Stewart supports blatant, premeditated vandalism on a car. The fact it was a “swanky high performance car” (which is irrelevant) was her justification, even support, for the vandalism.

I wonder how she would feel if someone vandalised something she had worked hard for and was her pride a joy because that person did not like people who had something they thought swanky.

Douglas Jardine,

20 Buchlyvie Gardens,

Bishopbriggs.